As I write this, the worst world leader since Hitler (possibly maybe even since before Hitler – sure he hasn’t killed 6 million Jews and who knows how many other people, but at least Hitler didn’t run his country into the ground economically.) is nearly a shoo-in to win. God damn this country. And that rat bastard Mark Kennedy appears to have won.
Comments (8)
yeah, bummer about First Ave. I got some great memories of that place.
Posted by ben | November 3, 2004 10:37 AM
Posted on November 3, 2004 10:37
but dooooood. wetterling. on her birthday! that's almost as bad as beating jesus on christmas.
Posted by ryan | November 4, 2004 12:29 AM
Posted on November 4, 2004 00:29
true, but regardless of anyone's own political leanings, for example if mark kennedy was one of the 3 or 4 main senators who favored cutting wages and health insurance for book cover designers, it would be hard for book cover designers to like the guy.
and speaking of the democratic party of minnesota, it's to bad that they ate the FL to become the DFL.
Posted by ryan | November 4, 2004 1:29 PM
Posted on November 4, 2004 13:29
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html
Posted by eli | November 4, 2004 1:48 PM
Posted on November 4, 2004 13:48
no that's not what i'm saying. what i mean is if he was running for something like the board of directors in the book cover designer company
also - people who favor national health care don't think it's free. they know they pay for it, and that's what they want. the idea is that health care is better and cost less when it's run in the public interest (which, whatever one says about the government and public interest, campaigning for a reelection usually guarantees at least a smidget of acting in the public's interest) and when the fellas who run it make salaries instead of profits.
anyway what i was getting at was not that he opposes a state health program, but that he opposes the health program and wages offered by my employer
Posted by ryan | November 4, 2004 4:58 PM
Posted on November 4, 2004 16:58
i could tell you that health care isn't neccessarily better in a national system. It all depends. Scotland and British Colombia had lousy health care systems compared to Minnesota. The BC Department of Health doesn't even have a public office I can go to. Everything is over the phone or by mail. Rather inconvenient. I think a safety-net system is a better compromise.
Posted by ben | November 4, 2004 7:17 PM
Posted on November 4, 2004 19:17
well, look at it this way dugan, someone else is paying your health too....and what happens if you get in a jam where YOU can't afford private health care?
Posted by ben | November 5, 2004 11:17 AM
Posted on November 5, 2004 11:17
how about another perspective. lack of insurance impedes economic growth.
basically the system we have now and the system of a universal health care are exactly the same system, except for 2 major differences. the first is that if you want in, you pay for it (that's not the difference) and you also pay for the elderly and the poor, so we're basically paying more than necessary to begin with. the second is that billionaires are making money at the expense of their consumers, so we're paying more to end with.
--------Posted by ryan | November 5, 2004 2:24 PM
Posted on November 5, 2004 14:24